Judge Jill Feeney, Case 22STCV28398 2023-01-17 Tentative Ruling

This is an action for negligence arising from a vehicle collision which took place in September 2020. Plaintiffs Earl E. Coker and Sheila D. Coker filed their Complaint against Defendants Wei Liu and AYZ Logistics on August 31, 2022.

Defendant AYZ Logistics (“AYZ”) argues a stay of proceedings is appropriate because the Federal District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Roanoke Division, earlier assumed jurisdiction over the subject matter of this lawsuit in the case Jian You Chen v. Wei Liu and AYZ Logistics, Inc., case number 7:22-cv-00449-TTC, filed on August 4, 2022.

Plaintiffs argue that Defendant fails to cite valid legal authority, that Plaintiffs’ choice of forum should not be disturbed, and that the doctrine of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction does not apply in this instance. Plaintiff argues that exclusive concurrent jurisdiction only applies where the two actions are pending in the same jurisdiction.

The rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction “is a judicial rule of priority or preference and does not divest a court, which otherwise has jurisdiction of an action, of jurisdiction. The rule is similar to an affirmative defense and the remedy for its applicability is a stay of the second action.” People ex rel. Garamendi v. American Autoplan, Inc. (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 760, 769. Thus, where two superior courts have concurrent jurisdiction over the subject matter and all parties involved in the litigation, "the first to assume jurisdiction has exclusive and continuing jurisdiction over the subject matter and all parties involved until such time as all necessarily related matters have been resolved.’ The rule is based upon the public policies of avoiding conflicts that might arise between courts if they were free to make contradictory decisions or awards relating to the same controversy and preventing vexatious litigation and multiplicity of suits.” (Id.)

The rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction is similar in effect to a statutory plea in abatement but is more expansive. (Plant Insulation Co. v. Fibreboard Corp. (1990) 224 Cal.App.3d 781, 788.) The rule does not require absolute identity of parties and causes of action sought in the initial and subsequent actions. (Id.) The remedies sought in the second action need not be precisely the same as asserted in the first action “so long as the court exercising original jurisdiction has the power to litigate all the issues and grant all the relief to which any of the parties might be entitled under the pleadings.” (Id.)

Moreover, “[a]n order of abatement issues as a matter of right not as a matter of discretion where the conditions for its issuance exist.

Under the rule of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction, when two superior courts have concurrent jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties, the first court to assume jurisdiction has exclusive and continuing jurisdiction until such time as all necessarily related matters have been resolved.” (Lawyers Title Ins. Corp. v. Superior Court (1984) 151 Cal.App.3d 455, 460.)

Defendants request that the Court take judicial notice of Plaintiffs’ Complaint in the instant matter, the Complaint and AYZ’s answer in the case Jian You Chen v. Wei Liu and AYZ Logistics, Inc., case number 7:22-cv-00449-TTC, the fact that AYZ answered the federal matter on November 29, 2022, and a Police Crash Report prepared in the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The requests are granted. With respect to the Police Crash Report, the Court may only take notice of the report’s existence, but not the truth of the matters contained therein because traffic collision reports are generally inadmissible.

AYZ seeks to stay the entire action on the grounds that there is a pending matter in the Western District of Virginia, Roanoke Division which has assumed exclusive jurisdiction over this matter first.

A plaintiff may maintain concurrent state and federal court actions arising from the same facts and circumstances. (Benitez v Williams (2013) 219 CA4th 270, 276.) Each court acquires subject matter jurisdiction over the action, but neither acquires exclusive jurisdiction. (Fowler v Ross (1983) 142 CA3d 472, 477.) Exclusive concurrent jurisdiction will apply if the courts are within the same state, but not when one is in state court and one is in federal court (Id at 476.) Each court may proceed at its own pace until one or the other reaches final judgment. (Id.) The first final judgment is res judicata on the issue and neither court may interfere with or try to restrain the other’s proceedings. (Id.)

Here, the parties do not dispute that this action and Jian You Chen v. Wei Liu and AYZ Logistics, Inc., case number 7:22-cv-00449-TTC (“Chen matter”) both concern the same vehicle collision which took place on September 14, 2020 in Pulaski County, Virginia. Additionally, both this Court and the Western Division of Virginia, Roanoke Division have jurisdiction over the subject matter of these actions.

Neither this Court nor the Western Division of Virginia, Roanoke Division have exclusive jurisdiction over these actions. Rather, both are permitted to proceed at their own pace until one court reaches final judgment. AYZ’s motion is denied.